Supreme Court's Ruling on Teaching of Creationism

The Times editorial department in its not-so-awful wisdom has decided that all we need to know about ourselves as human beings is explainable by the Darwin theory. Namely, that we evolved "helter-skelter" from lower organisms (not by any known laws, mind you) without planning, and without divine intervention.

Evolution is termed a science and creationism not a science. Scientific observation is said to proceed from hypothesis to theory and, then, to law. Whose law? Centuries ago authorities decided that the Earth was flat and the sun revolved about the Earth. It was declared to be the "Law" and nonsense to believe otherwise! In those times it was the religious authorities who enforced these views, but now we have made science our god.

Do we really know that much about ourselves to dismiss creationism as a possibility? To assert that man somehow evolved but was not created or planned is like saying that buildings evolve from construction materials without creative direction or human intervention.

Creationism as presently understood and practiced is not a science but it can become one if the mind of man is studied in correlation with the spirit or the life force in man. We are creative beings, unlike the animals, and no amount of theory can disprove that fact.